This thread should serve MS to see how we understand ATC

What is important to you for a realistic ATC? Bad ATC makes me bored quickly.

For me, i think it is important to have realistic traffic (quantity)

• request headings (bad weather)
• request directs
• different approaching (VOR, ILS, ...)
• SID/STARS
• Holdings

ATC should give me a lot of instructions, I do not want to constantly have to follow my route.

 

 

Edited August 23, 20196 yr by Pitbull2504

I could think of a few...

HF for oceanic flight with the static in the background

local Transition Altitudes/levels (could be in the SDK for airport developers)

Metric units options for met information like visibility and cloud base

runway for takeoff/landing or approach request by pilot regardless of any preferential system

SID/ star's or even non standard departures ( direct routings after a sid or star was issued)

occasional runway inspection from ground vehicles would add to immersion.

Emergency procedures.

Nonfunctional radio approach.

Requesting barometric pressure.

SID and STAR support.

 

Aside from the aviation aspects, great speech synthesis and speech recognition.

In VR I don't want to have to type or grab controllers to click buttons.

Not so obvious (hugh+bright) taxi route arrows, maybe a faint dotted line. Efb with moving airport map preferably

What FSX had with the addition of SID/STARS would be enough for me to get going and have an idea of what it would be like in the real word. 
Anything else i fear will either be boring, a waste of development resources or overcomplicated for us playing a videogame on our PCs and the overall audience.

Edited August 23, 20196 yr by france89

I am more concerned with the behaviour of AI planes in association with ATC instructions....

• No endless "stop/start/stop/start...." messages for AI planes following me on the ground.
• Proper separation of aircraft on final approach
• Realistic roll outs when landing
• More consistent taxi speed (including sections of taxiway up to the runway threshold)
• "Taxi into position and hold" for departing aircraft before an arriving aircraft has left the runway (unless another aircraft on final approach has already been cleared to land)
• No stupid turnarounds on the grass to try and get back to an exit when there is a perfectly good exit a bit further down the runway
• No landings short of the runway
• Clearance to cross a runway immediately after an arriving/departing aircraft has passed.

51 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

"Taxi into position and hold" 

And, of course, update to the latest phraseology since "position and hold" is now "line up and wait" 😉

Edited August 23, 20196 yr by snglecoil

I actually prefer "taxi into position and hold"

I think getting too crazy with atc will turn off a lot off the newcomers who MS are trying to attract.  Myself, I've been simming for 20+ years and I know little about SIDs and STARs.

1 hour ago, Pitbull2504 said:

ATC should give me a lot of instructions, I do not want to constantly have to follow my route.

On the flip side of this coin, the old ATC system would start vectoring for an approach a little too far out...and then proceed to give excessive repeated vectors. I'm guessing this was due to the vector assignment calculated by ATC not factoring ground track differences caused by winds aloft. It would be great to have that adjusted.

ATC should be CAP413 compliant please, no less...

8 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

I think getting too crazy with atc will turn off a lot off the newcomers who MS are trying to attract.  Myself, I've been simming for 20+ years and I know little about SIDs and STARs.

Maybe it is possible to adjust the difficulty.

I prefer FAA 7100.65, but yes. If using TTS, the differences are almost trivial to model.

Request deviation for weather, pronounce "American twelve sixty four, instead of "American one two six four.